How Record Labels Conspired To Kill Off Public Domain Beatles Music In Canada
from the no-public-domain-for-you dept
Earlier this year, we discussed that, thanks to shorter copyright terms in Canada, things like early Beatles recordings and James Bond had entered the public domain up north. It was no secret that the recording industry was totally freaked out about this, and that resulted in the somewhat bizarre situation in which Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper single-handedly extended copyright on sound recordings for 20 years by sticking it into a budget update, without any public discussion or concern about the fact that he was simply wiping out twenty years of use of works that the public had been promised.Of course, this extension only applied to works that hadn't yet fallen into the public domain, so there is still a small window of early 1960s sound recordings that are, in fact, in the public domain. One company, Stargrove Entertainment, sought to take advantage of this, and released a CD of public domain Beatles music, selling it at various retailers like Wal-Mart, and causing it to be the top selling CD in Canada for a little while. And that's when the recording industry struck back. According to a massive legal filing to Canada's Competition Tribunal filed by Stargrove, the big record labels conspired to shut down its ability to sell public domain music (hat tip to Michael Geist for first highlighting this filing).
There were a number of nasty tricks played by the legacy recording companies here, but it starts with the fact that, while the sound recordings are in the public domain, the compositions remain under copyright. Normally that shouldn't be a problem, as Canada effectively has a compulsory licensing system for mechanical licenses on the publishing. Pay up the standard fee and you're all good. And that's exactly what Stargrove did for that Beatles album. But, it was then that it appears the powers that be in the record labels -- who just happen to also own the major publishing companies -- suddenly decided that it would no longer approve mechanical licenses.
The publishers associated with each of the Titles include ABKCO, Casablanca and Sony (collectively, the “Title Holders”). One by one, and in quick succession, each of the Title Holders gave instructions to CMRRA [Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Ltd.] in January or February 2015 to stop issuing mechanical licences to Stargrove.Thus, even though the recordings are in the public domain, suddenly Stargrove is blocked from releasing CDs with those recordings, despite the fact that CMRRA has always approved every other mechanical license request at the standard fee ($0.083 per song, per copy for songs less than 5 minutes).
A CMRRA representative professed her surprise to Stargrove at this instruction from the Title Holders, but CMRRA followed their instruction. In fact, CMRRA went even further and refused to grant Stargrove any mechanical licences, whether from one of the Title Holders or not. Stargrove’s attempts to enter into an MLA were stymied by CMRRA, who erected barrier after barrier to Stargrove’s application.
CMRRA refunded Stargrove’s royalty payment for the Titles at the end of February 2015.
On multiple occasions, Stargrove requested explanations for the refusals to grant mechanical licences, both from CMRRA and from the Title Holders directly, and asked them to reverse course. Stargrove has been refused an explanation, other than in a letter from CMRRA, which stated that the Title Holders’ “refusal to deal is at least partially related to the fact that there are public domain master recordings on the products in question.”
And that was just the beginning. Universal Music Canada's then-CEO, Randy Lennox, then sought to interfere with Stargrove's distribution partner, reaching out to them to try to resolve "the public domain issue."
Randy Lennox, the CEO of Universal Music Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to the principals of Anderson, the distributors of Stargrove’s CDs, asking Anderson to partner with Universal to find solutions and resolve what he called a “public domain issue”.Did you know the public domain is an "issue"? Now you do...
And that's not all. Stargrove also alleges that Universal Music started posting negative reviews online of the Beatles CD:
Brian Greaves, an account manager at Universal Music Canada Inc., concocted negative reviews on Walmart's website, complaining that Stargrove’s products were of poor quality. He encouraged other Universal employees to do the same and to help him with Universal’s “campaign” to discourage Anderson from distributing Stargrove’s CDs, stating that poor reviews would deter Anderson from distributing Stargrove’s products in the future. Walmart subsequently removed all the fake reviews from its site. Stargrove’s CDs had a low return rate: of the over 2000 Stargrove CDs sold, only one CD was returned.All this because the industry so fears having to compete against the public domain. All this because, despite having total exclusivity for fifty years on some of the most popular music on the planet, that's still not enough.
Mr. Greaves noted that Stargrove’s CDs were taking away from Universal’s sales and market share, and claimed that Universal had already successfully removed a Rolling Stones title from the CDs offered for sale by Stargrove, despite the fact that the copyright in question was held by ABKCO, not Universal.
It really makes you wonder why does Universal Music and the other record labels seem to hate the public so much? When those songs were recorded, everyone knew they'd be in the public domain now. That was a part of the deal. And it was certainly enough incentive to get the songs recorded at the time. So why are they so focused on continuing to block the public domain today?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: canada, copyright, mechanical license, public domain, publishing
Companies: stargrove entertainment, universal music, walmart
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Greedy bullies
You're seriously asking this? For a clue, look at the title of this post...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Universal is selling the same material then what's the difference between the two? If Stargrove's quality really is worse than Universal don't you think the fans would be yelling about it?
And if it's because Stargrove's product is in WalMart and Universal's is not: whose fault is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's not hard to guess. Magic pixie dust remastering in order to get some copyrightable element back into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this one of those rhetorical questions?
Really? You actually need to ask? It's simple:
It provides competition, they cannot control it, and therefor cannot use it to extort money from others for it's use.
Something in the public domain is something they don't have a monopoly on, which means anyone can sell it, use it, or give it away, all without having to ask them for permission, without having to pay them ridiculous sums simply because the choice is 'Pay us or go without'.
They hate the public domain because they can't control it(directly at least), and because it provides competition to the rubbish they offer. As their actions make crystal clear, as far as they're concerned copyright law is meant solely to benefit the parasites, and no one else. That it theoretically is meant to benefit the public is simply window dressing, a lie to trot out when they want the next retroactive expansion to the duration, and ignored completely otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christ, what an asshole!
(Oh and thanks to the Music • Technology • Policy blog for posting it. They're wrong about absolutely everything, all the time, but at least they're always good for a laugh)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Domain is the _only_ competition
If a rock revival disco event can make do with only Public Domain music, any idea how much money will get lost?
The isolated PD recording is not the problem. The problem is if you get enough together to actually arrange for a continuous offering of music. And, God beware, if people get to prefer that music? What are you going to do? Dig up the old musicians and tell them to go back to composing instead of decomposing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YAY! Copyright maximalists defeat copying CRAP! -- MAXIMALISM JUST ISN'T ENOUGH FOR BEATLES! MORE THIS KIND OF PREVENTATIVE ACTION!
Who cares? Why do you want lousy covers of crap that everyone has heard endlessly for fifty years?
WHO THE HELL CARES? Except you to use it against copyright. Millions of people will get deserved value from copyright products today, but YOU'RE worried some nitwits can't copy the Beatles!
Yet again, what you try to cast as stifling "creativity" I see as liberating and admirable prevention of more crap-ifying.
I think it better to force band-clowns to come up with anything new. You've slanted this as if horrible, but what's your positive case for repeating crap that's readily available? How does that make anything better? Why are you locked into the 1960s? You're just wackily anachronistic hippies. I've never met anyone who liked Beatles and did not use drugs. It's a syndrome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YAY! Copyright maximalists defeat copying CRAP! -- MAXIMALISM JUST ISN'T ENOUGH FOR BEATLES! MORE THIS KIND OF PREVENTATIVE ACTION!
Get all the text and none of the ads with the new Techdirt Lite!
https://www.techdirt.com/?_format=lite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: YAY! Copyright maximalists defeat copying CRAP! -- MAXIMALISM JUST ISN'T ENOUGH FOR BEATLES! MORE THIS KIND OF PREVENTATIVE ACTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: YAY! Copyright maximalists defeat copying CRAP! -- MAXIMALISM JUST ISN'T ENOUGH FOR BEATLES! MORE THIS KIND OF PREVENTATIVE ACTION!
they live for people to reply to their crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: YAY! Copyright maximalists defeat copying CRAP! -- MAXIMALISM JUST ISN'T ENOUGH FOR BEATLES! MORE THIS KIND OF PREVENTATIVE ACTION!
The only thing you are accomplishing here is making yourself look like a rambling loonatic and a whiney crybaby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: YAY! Copyright maximalists defeat copying CRAP! -- MAXIMALISM JUST ISN'T ENOUGH FOR BEATLES! MORE THIS KIND OF PREVENTATIVE ACTION!
You sir have some major cognitive dissonance going on. If your post has been censored, a simple click won't reveal it. It's gone. Completely. But you'll just keep hollering about how we're all evil pirates who censor the sole crusader for justice or something, because you're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It looks like the one addicted to crap and drugs is you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YAY! Copyright maximalists defeat copying CRAP! -- MAXIMALISM JUST ISN'T ENOUGH FOR BEATLES! MORE THIS KIND OF PREVENTATIVE ACTION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YAY! Copyright maximalists defeat copying CRAP! -- MAXIMALISM JUST ISN'T ENOUGH FOR BEATLES! MORE THIS KIND OF PREVENTATIVE ACTION!
To follow your logic, who the hell cares about your opinion? How does it make anything better? Why are you locked into a reload loop in Techdirt? I've never met any troll who didn't sniff used socks and underwear. It's a syndrome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know this is Canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like a Counterproductive Idea to piss off Wal-Mart
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seems like a Counterproductive Idea to piss off Wal-Mart
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How does this work?
Also, does the copyright on sound recordings operate with different terms than the copyright on compositions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How does this work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and why are so many politicians, lawmakers and security forces always on the side of the industries? it must cost an absolute fortune to keep all these extra money=grabbing assholes sweet!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is by far the most offensive thing of all. Sure the MAFIAA are a bunch of rotten assholes but none of this wouldn't be possible if Harper worked for those that elected him and not to a small set of interests. Harper, as it seems Canadians agree, is one of the worst things Canada has seen for a while now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
compulsory licensing system for mechanical licenses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: compulsory licensing system for mechanical licenses
That's a nice grandmother you have there. It would be a real shame if she choked on that license of yours and drowned. But go to court if you want to. We'll just shut down your business completely. If you find a court not in our pockets, it will be so overloaded that it will take five years, double that for appeals, until getting through.
How are you going to pay your workers? Fire them? Well, you know, we just happen to know that a large number have signed up to be union members. I happen to have a list here. A really well-financed union, by the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: compulsory licensing system for mechanical licenses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pretty simple actually
You get them from the birds and bees,
But give me MONEY, that's what I want!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If we can't control it, no one should be allowed to have it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, they all assumed that by now they would be able to get copyright law changed to keep them under copyright forever. Them becoming public domain was NEVER part of the plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't buy me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't buy me
I believe that Quebec is the only area not on the offering block though.
I hear that Harper's goal is to have a chateau or castle in every major country on earth, and he's willing to sell off almost all of Canada to get what he wants.
He's what they call Trill. :)
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stargrove Entertainment is a RIPOFF!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]